PRECISION PAYROLL SERVICES LLC v. ADVANTAGE PAYROLL SERVICES INC

Filing 36

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE - granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion to Dismiss; denying 17 Motion to Strike. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PRECISION PAYROLL SERVICES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANTAGE PAYROLL SERVICES,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
) Docket No. 2:16-cv-00439-NT
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
Before me is the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts Four through Six of the
Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the
Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Defendant’s counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f). Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 7); Pl.’s Mot. to Strike (ECF No. 17).
The Plaintiff in this case is Precision Payroll Services LLC (“Precision”), a
franchisee of Defendant Advantage Payroll Services, Inc. (“Advantage”). Precision
is one of five franchises (“the Associates”) that have brought concurrent suits
against Advantage. See Howell v. Advantage Payroll Services, Inc., No. 2:16-438-NT.
Precision filed separately and only against Advantage because it could not establish
diversity jurisdiction over its claims against Paychex. Compl. ¶ 5 (ECF No. 1).
For the reasons set forth in my Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, Howell v. Advantage Payroll Services, Inc., No. 2:16-438-

NT, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss on Counts Four and Five and GRANTS
the motion to dismiss on Count Six. The Court DENIES the motion to strike.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States Chief District Judge
Dated this Dated this 28th day of February, 2017.

2